Congress's First Power Demolishes Tea Party's "Constitutional Principle"

[kaz]

I clicked on a bunch of them, and they all suffered from the same lack of definitions. The term "wealth" is not unambiguous and I shouldn't have to figure out how they are defining it, they should tell me. I'm a six sigma black belt, a math major, and an MBA and when you present charts you define your terms, something they consistently failed to do. When that happens and you see numbers and they start drawing specific conclusions from them with no definition of what was measured much less how it was measured, two terms pop in to a critical mind:

1) agenda

2) BS

Lazy is not caring what they meant by "wealth" and just getting off because the conclusions drawn served your political agenda

So you're an outright liar too? Because if you spent 10 minutes looking for how they defined "wealth" you would have found it but you're too stubborn to actually look

I'll do your legwork AGAIN

http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/oss/oss2/papers/concentration.2001.10.pdf

http://www.clms.neu.edu/publication/documents/Wealth_in_America.pdf

Those are just two of the studies that you could have easily found if you weren't completely lazy that clearly establish how they define wealth.

I said I clicked on a bunch of the links, not all of them. Yes, you keep informing me that I'm too lazy to prove your point for you. I got it at this point, when you say something other people need to figure out why you said it. As for the two long documents you provided links to, wealth wasn't precisely defined there early in them and I'm not going to spend hours proving your point for you no matter how many times you inform me that's my job.

No, instead you felt the need to inform me how smart you are. LOL.

You don't understand the difference between credentials (which I provided) and intelligence (which I made no statement on)? Not very bright of you.

Feel free to post anything that proves me wrong with data that you feel is sufficiently qualified. I'd LOVE to see it.

Right, it's not your job to prove your point, it's my job to disprove it. I questioned your point, you vomited links in response. That's where we are.

 

[RDD_1210]

The quotes I supplied and the links to them list exactly what your statements were, and my replies to them.

My assertion that you CAN tax that 50% stands, uncountered and undaunted.

Forget it. Someone that think that sales tax has anything to do with wealth or this conversation is someone who is just not a smart person. Simple as that.

You stated that you could not tax the people in that 50%.
I stated that you could, and gave examples: sales tax, income tax, property tax.
-Nothing- you said since that statement has negated said statemment or those examples.

Thus, your statement that those people cannot be taxed, because they have nothing TO tax is wrong. Period.

I'm sorry that this fact forces you to respond like pre-puubescent child - but that's on you, and no one else.

You could tax them but what can you realistically get out of those people? They have VERY little to spare. What will taxing them achieve? It will only make their lives more difficult while doing very little to impact our deficit. You're hurting a whole lot of the population for very little return. That's the point that has gone completely over your head.

 

[kaz]

I'd like to hear one single example of something the government funds, or may choose to fund, that is unconstitutional.

Hint: There isn't one.

You're right, there isn't "one" there are endless examples. Just a few:

- Social security (9th and 10th Amendments)
- Medicare (9th and 10th Amendments)
- Medicaid (9th and 10th Amendments)
- The war on drugs (9th and 10th Amendments)
- The war in Iraq (not declared plus not defense of the United States)
- The war in Afghanistan (not declared plus not defense of the United States)
- Federal welfare (9th and 10th Amendments)
- The Department of Education (9th and 10th Amendments)
- The Department of Energy (9th and 10th Amendments)
- Enforcement of Roe v. Wade (9th and 10th Amendments)
- Funding of State welfare programs (9th and 10th Amendments)
- Federal unemployment (9th and 10th Amendments)
- Obamacare (9th and 10th Amendments)

Just a few

Can you point out one that has been found to be unconstitutional please?

Here's a hint: There isn't one.

You changed the question. You asked what was unconstitutional that is funded by the government. Asked and answered.

Now you're asking what the government has decided it can't do because it's unconstitutional. The ultimate in sheep you are, you have the rights government tells you that you have.

 

[kaz]

Kaz, where are you? I was waiting to see you flex that MBA of yours with some amazing data and evidence to dispute anything that I posted. It's weird you suddenly stopped posting in this thread.

My MBA is no match for your faith in the platitudes and easy answers your liberal religion provides, so I wouldn't dream of telling you the MBA matters. As for where was I, as much as I love to debate politics I can't do it all day, sorry. I do try to get back to discussions in threads, but putting a timer on me isn't going to make it faster. Earning a living comes first. Sorry.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Forget it. Someone that think that sales tax has anything to do with wealth or this conversation is someone who is just not a smart person. Simple as that.

You stated that you could not tax the people in that 50%.
I stated that you could, and gave examples: sales tax, income tax, property tax.
-Nothing- you said since that statement has negated said statemment or those examples.

Thus, your statement that those people cannot be taxed, because they have nothing TO tax is wrong. Period.

I'm sorry that this fact forces you to respond like pre-puubescent child - but that's on you, and no one else.

You could tax them...

Good to see you've -finally- gotten over youeself and are now willing to admit that your statement was wrong, and, in fact, that these people CAN be taxed.
Was that so difficult?

 

[kaz]

You could tax them but what can you realistically get out of those people? They have VERY little to spare. What will taxing them achieve? It will only make their lives more difficult while doing very little to impact our deficit. You're hurting a whole lot of the population for very little return. That's the point that has gone completely over your head.

Your hurdle that that 50% of the richest country in the history of man have little to spare is preposterous. But if you drew the line at 25% or so then you're right, not much money will be paid. But there is one very good reason everyone should pay taxes. If you are not a taxpayer, you have no stake in the spending done by our government. No matter what you earn, a portion of it should be taxed for that reason. Without taxes, you are only concerned with what you get from government, not what it costs to provide it.

Or, we could go to a better system, like the Fair Tax. But exempting earners from being taxpayers is a huge mistake and the proof is what is happening in this country right now.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You could tax them but what can you realistically get out of those people? They have VERY little to spare. What will taxing them achieve? It will only make their lives more difficult while doing very little to impact our deficit. You're hurting a whole lot of the population for very little return. That's the point that has gone completely over your head.

Your hurdle that that 50% of the richest country in the history of man have little to spare is preposterous

Given where the 25% federal bracket starts, you ain't a kidding.

 

[RDD_1210]

I clicked on a bunch of them, and they all suffered from the same lack of definitions. The term "wealth" is not unambiguous and I shouldn't have to figure out how they are defining it, they should tell me. I'm a six sigma black belt, a math major, and an MBA and when you present charts you define your terms, something they consistently failed to do. When that happens and you see numbers and they start drawing specific conclusions from them with no definition of what was measured much less how it was measured, two terms pop in to a critical mind:

1) agenda

2) BS

Lazy is not caring what they meant by "wealth" and just getting off because the conclusions drawn served your political agenda

So you're an outright liar too? Because if you spent 10 minutes looking for how they defined "wealth" you would have found it but you're too stubborn to actually look

I'll do your legwork AGAIN

http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/oss/oss2/papers/concentration.2001.10.pdf

http://www.clms.neu.edu/publication/documents/Wealth_in_America.pdf

Those are just two of the studies that you could have easily found if you weren't completely lazy that clearly establish how they define wealth.

I said I clicked on a bunch of the links, not all of them. Yes, you keep informing me that I'm too lazy to prove your point for you. I got it at this point, when you say something other people need to figure out why you said it. As for the two long documents you provided links to, wealth wasn't precisely defined there early in them and I'm not going to spend hours proving your point for you no matter how many times you inform me that's my job.

No, instead you felt the need to inform me how smart you are. LOL.

You don't understand the difference between credentials (which I provided) and intelligence (which I made no statement on)? Not very bright of you.

Feel free to post anything that proves me wrong with data that you feel is sufficiently qualified. I'd LOVE to see it.

Right, it's not your job to prove your point, it's my job to disprove it. I questioned your point, you vomited links in response. That's where we are.

LOL, how else should I prove my point? Links to documented studies are no good now? But your "credentials" are sufficient? I backed up my claim with studies and data. You've yet to do anything except avoid this topic until I called you out for running away. You laughed at my statement yet still no evidence from you that supports that I am wrong.

As for the two long documents you provided links to, wealth wasn't precisely defined there early in them and I'm not going to spend hours proving your point for you no matter how many times you inform me that's my job.

Oh, I see. The second sentence is too far in for you? Holy fuck you're pathetic. Here I'll do the work for you......again. My god you are lazy. You are what is wrong with this country. Sheer laziness. If only you worked as hard as you complain, we'd be much better off.

"The wealth or net worth of U.S. households is a stock measure of the difference between the value of their assets and their liabilities"

 

[RDD_1210]

Kaz, where are you? I was waiting to see you flex that MBA of yours with some amazing data and evidence to dispute anything that I posted. It's weird you suddenly stopped posting in this thread.

My MBA is no match for your faith in the platitudes and easy answers your liberal religion provides, so I wouldn't dream of telling you the MBA matters. As for where was I, as much as I love to debate politics I can't do it all day, sorry. I do try to get back to discussions in threads, but putting a timer on me isn't going to make it faster. Earning a living comes first. Sorry.

Would be valid if you weren't busy posting all night in other threads. Bzzzzz. Fail.

 

[RDD_1210]

You stated that you could not tax the people in that 50%.
I stated that you could, and gave examples: sales tax, income tax, property tax.
-Nothing- you said since that statement has negated said statemment or those examples.

Thus, your statement that those people cannot be taxed, because they have nothing TO tax is wrong. Period.

I'm sorry that this fact forces you to respond like pre-puubescent child - but that's on you, and no one else.

You could tax them...

Good to see you've -finally- gotten over youeself and are now willing to admit that your statement was wrong, and, in fact, that these people CAN be taxed.
Was that so difficult?

How about responding to my whole post. Which is the point I have been making all along.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You could tax them...

Good to see you've -finally- gotten over youeself and are now willing to admit that your statement was wrong, and, in fact, that these people CAN be taxed.
Was that so difficult?

How about responding to my whole post. Which is the point I have been making all along.

I took specific exception to a particular point you made.
You have since admitted your error.
Party on, Garth.

 

[kaz]

LOL, how else should I prove my point? Links to documented studies are no good now?

Making a statement and supporting it by vomiting links and providing links to long studies doesn't cut it, no. You need to provide answers that make sense and supporting with documentation, not say, here spend reading hours reading this and it'll make sense. I asked a simple question, I got a flood of BS in response.

But your "credentials" are sufficient?

Sufficient for what? I didn't make a claim, you did.

Oh, I see. The second sentence is too far in for you? Holy fuck you're pathetic. Here I'll do the work for you......again. My god you are lazy. You are what is wrong with this country. Sheer laziness. If only you worked as hard as you complain, we'd be much better off.

"The wealth or net worth of U.S. households is a stock measure of the difference between the value of their assets and their liabilities"

"I" am pathetic? Talk about a pathetic non-answer. Wealth = assets less liabilities. It's like asking what Cal Ripken's lifetime batting average as and you answer the number of hits he got divided by the number of plate appearances. No duh. It never ceases to amaze me no matter how stupid I think liberals are their point was even more inane then the most inane thing I imagined.

So, from the points I originally raise, I'll dumb it down for you the best I can, though it won't be enough.

- Did the statistics count home ownership? The references I saw were to portfolios and investments, not personal assets. But I couldn't find a definition. For the middle class, their home is typically by far their biggest investment.

- Did it count the net present value of pensions and social security? Again, the references seemed to indicate they didn't.

- Did they even count 401Ks or IRAs? The references were just unclear on this one.

Here's an easy one. Does your "definition" of wealth answer any of those questions? The answer is no. Oops, gave you a freeby, that was easy.

 

[kaz]

Kaz, where are you? I was waiting to see you flex that MBA of yours with some amazing data and evidence to dispute anything that I posted. It's weird you suddenly stopped posting in this thread.

My MBA is no match for your faith in the platitudes and easy answers your liberal religion provides, so I wouldn't dream of telling you the MBA matters. As for where was I, as much as I love to debate politics I can't do it all day, sorry. I do try to get back to discussions in threads, but putting a timer on me isn't going to make it faster. Earning a living comes first. Sorry.

Would be valid if you weren't busy posting all night in other threads. Bzzzzz. Fail.

Hmmm....I wasn't on last night...

 

[RDD_1210]

You could tax them but what can you realistically get out of those people? They have VERY little to spare. What will taxing them achieve? It will only make their lives more difficult while doing very little to impact our deficit. You're hurting a whole lot of the population for very little return. That's the point that has gone completely over your head.

Your hurdle that that 50% of the richest country in the history of man have little to spare is preposterous.

Is it? How so? Or are we just taking your word for it again based on your credentials? The richest country in the history of man where 50% of the population owns a minute stake in that. It's great if you're in the top 10%, not so much for the bottom 50%. Exactly how is that preposterous?

But if you drew the line at 25% or so then you're right, not much money will be paid. But there is one very good reason everyone should pay taxes. If you are not a taxpayer, you have no stake in the spending done by our government. No matter what you earn, a portion of it should be taxed for that reason. Without taxes, you are only concerned with what you get from government, not what it costs to provide it.

Or, we could go to a better system, like the Fair Tax. But exempting earners from being taxpayers is a huge mistake and the proof is what is happening in this country right now.

 

[M14 Shooter]

"The wealth or net worth of U.S. households is a stock measure of the difference between the value of their assets and their liabilities"

How do you propose someome be taxed on his 'net wealth'?

 

[RDD_1210]

My MBA is no match for your faith in the platitudes and easy answers your liberal religion provides, so I wouldn't dream of telling you the MBA matters. As for where was I, as much as I love to debate politics I can't do it all day, sorry. I do try to get back to discussions in threads, but putting a timer on me isn't going to make it faster. Earning a living comes first. Sorry.

Would be valid if you weren't busy posting all night in other threads. Bzzzzz. Fail.

Hmmm....I wasn't on last night...

Whatever time zone you're in. You were posting plenty in other threads avoiding this one....conveniently until I called you out for it. Isn't it a shame that anyone can see where and when you post.

 

[kaz]

You could tax them but what can you realistically get out of those people? They have VERY little to spare. What will taxing them achieve? It will only make their lives more difficult while doing very little to impact our deficit. You're hurting a whole lot of the population for very little return. That's the point that has gone completely over your head.

Your hurdle that that 50% of the richest country in the history of man have little to spare is preposterous.

Is it? How so? Or are we just taking your word for it again based on your credentials? The richest country in the history of man where 50% of the population owns a minute stake in that. It's great if you're in the top 10%, not so much for the bottom 50%. Exactly how is that preposterous?

Begging the question

 

[RDD_1210]

Good to see you've -finally- gotten over youeself and are now willing to admit that your statement was wrong, and, in fact, that these people CAN be taxed.
Was that so difficult?

How about responding to my whole post. Which is the point I have been making all along.

I took specific exception to a particular point you made.
You have since admitted your error.
Party on, Garth.

Pathetic.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Why raise taxes when all they do is waste and blow our money. Screw em. It's time for the government to do without.

And why give tax cuts to the rich who don 't create jobs? Its not like you Repugs are giving Americans hope that tax cuts for the rich will do anything. Any way, the point is that Congress has the power to raise taxes and create taxes, something that Repugs deny and accuse the government of being gangsters. How can somebody be a fucking gangster when they're doing something constitutional and legal? Shithead!

If the rich don't create jobs then who does? The poor? The government? Unicorns?

 

[kaz]

Would be valid if you weren't busy posting all night in other threads. Bzzzzz. Fail.

Hmmm....I wasn't on last night...

Whatever time zone you're in. You were posting plenty in other threads avoiding this one....conveniently until I called you out for it. Isn't it a shame that anyone can see where and when you post.

Yeah, I'm obviously avoiding this thread. The last time I was on yesterday I was responding to every thread I saw that I had discussions going on. If this thread dropped and you "called me out" after I dropped off then sure I could have missed it. But you're just a dime a dozen typical liberal religious zealot. What's even to avoid? When I came back the thread was relatively near the top and I saw it. I'll grant you I didn't go to the second page and look for it. You have an overinflated sense of your worth if you think I was coming back and specifically looking for it. Your knowledge is very low, this isn't very interesting. You just keep repeating liberal economic religious arguments.